tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114972790026672023..comments2017-09-24T11:41:48.268-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Evolution and EthicsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1150116260109796052006-06-12T06:44:00.000-06:002006-06-12T06:44:00.000-06:00SheldonThere may be arguments for the claim that e...<B>Sheldon</B><BR/><BR/>There may be arguments for the claim that evolution may favor some of the same ends that morality also promotes. But parallelism is not the same as identity.<BR/><BR/>You still have the problem of how, from evolution, you can get the concepts of moral (as opposed to causal) responsibility, blameworthiness, merit. How can one person's genetic disposition to harm another imply that the other is, in fact, evil and deserving of harm?<BR/><BR/>The inability of evolution to handle basic moral concepts suggests that this is all we get from evolution -- a disposition to go in the same direction as morality for a little while.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1150006075798041882006-06-11T00:07:00.000-06:002006-06-11T00:07:00.000-06:00Alonzo,As I understand some of the arguments for m...Alonzo,<BR/>As I understand some of the arguments for morality as an evolved trait it is that emotional responses related to morality such as empathy, shame, and a sense of fairness are what is the result of evolution, not neccessarily the specific ideas of what is right and wrong such as the example of slavery. These various emotional senses are a part of the greater repertoire of traits related to social intelligence that allows individuals to live socially with others. Evolutionarily speaking, it is most plausible that a sense of moral obligations and empathy are felt towards those that one sees as the most closely related, i.e. immediate kin, one's ethnic group etc.. Thus the prevalence of what can be termed "in-group morality", explains moral concern towards insiders, and indifference or even outright hostility to the interests of the "other".<BR/><BR/>Of course, now from this point in history it is hoped that at least some of us are moving towards moral concern for the interests of all of humanity.Sheldonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149921563118498752006-06-10T00:39:00.000-06:002006-06-10T00:39:00.000-06:00While I think cultural patterns are very similar t...While I think cultural patterns are very similar to evolutionary ones, they are not so alike that vague references to biological mechanisms sufficiently explain behavior. This is especially true where we consider biological circumstances in isolation from other overt behaviors. Rather, our culture has a development all it's own, with the many members of the society intermingling and creating growth through overt behaviors, like bacteria breeding in a petri dish.<BR/><BR/>Sure, it all boils down to biology, then physics in the end. You could certainly claim a link between them, and it would be hard to argue once your premises get sufficiently vague. Still, it's a gross oversimplification of matters to directly compare evolution with morality; how anyone expects a practical moral model from it is beyond me.arc_legionnoreply@blogger.com